The functions that the Health & Safety Executive delivers in preventing death, injury and ill health in the workplace are still needed and a non-departmental public body remains the appropriate delivery model.
That was the conclusion of the first triennial review of the national regulator for health and safety, which was published yesterday by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Writing in the report’s foreword, Martin Temple, chair of the EEF, said that there was a continuing need for the functions that the HSE delivers, and a very strong case for those functions to continue to be delivered by an arms-length body.
Asked to lead the review in April 2013, Mr Temple added that, on the whole, the HSE was operating with the level of control and governance that should be expected of an arms-length body of its size and profile.
Even so, he said that there was room for improvement and identified a number of areas where there was scope for innovation and change, “to ensure that HSE continues to operate efficiently and effectively in the 21st century”.
Mr Temple identified funding as an important issue. He said that the HSE’s efficiency and effectiveness to deliver its functions was dependent, in part, on its resources and how it chose to deploy them, and to make use of others to deliver aspects of its work.
“The funding from government has decreased over the last 10 years and it is unrealistic to expect in financially constrained times that the HSE’s budget will be returned to levels at an equivalent value to those it had previously,” he warned in the review’s executive summary.
“For the foreseeable future, its funding will continue to be reduced in line with the rest of the public sector. It is vital, therefore, that the HSE continues to explore innovative approaches to making the delivery of its key functions as effective and efficient as possible.”
Responding to the review, IOSH executive director of policy Dr Luise Vassie welcomed the report’s conclusion that the HSE, with all existing functions, was fit for purpose as a non-governmental public body.
She told SHP: “Our submission to the triennial review strongly supported the continued need for the HSE and its current delivery model as arm’s length from government ministers, and the need for better resources.”
IOSH added that it would comment further on Mr Temple’s other recommendations in due course.
Prospect Union also welcomed the review’s findings but echoed Mr Temple’s concerns about the HSE’s fee for intervention (FFI) cost recovery scheme.
Deputy general secretary Garry Graham, said: “€ﾦthe review rightly raises concerns about the new FFI model, which links the regulator’s funding to its income from ‘fines’, calling it a ‘dangerous’ model that has potentially damaged the HSE’s reputation for acting impartially and independently.”
He added that FFI had been rushed in to fill gaps in HSE’s budget caused by government cuts. “We strongly back the review’s call to remove the link between funding and fines,” he continued. “It is the wrong solution for funding. HSE has lost experienced inspectors because of the cuts and difficulties caused by FFI.”
On the issue of funding, Alex Botha, CEO of the British Safety Council, said: “In principle, we support the overall approach the Temple report recommended concerning the potential for the HSE to become more commercial in outlook and delivery.”
However, he warned that there were dangers in over-commercialising HSE’s functions and increased public service involvement in a market, which is already well provided for.
SHP will include a more detailed analysis of the triennial review in the February issue.
